I once saw Case Keenum’s existence as a blight upon the Texans. Not because I didn’t enjoy his work (I went to the University of Houston), and not because I thought he was untalented — but because his background inevitably meant that radio callers would wonder why he wasn’t starting yet. It’s the Tim Tebow Jacksonville syndrome taken to a much smaller scale — a loud minority that stakes a claim on a bandwagon that seems kind of ridiculous.

But after this season, I am thrilled with Case Keenum, because his play has illustrated a core problem that the Texans have. The people involved in this organization are not dumb men, but they are men that are married to the ideas that got them to where they are today. There is no learning on the Houston Texans. Keenum’s development shows exactly why that is. Here is what we know about Keenum’s short time as a starter:

– Keenum started off by hitting the deep balls that Matt Schaub could not. Through Week 15, Keenum’s average deep pass has gone 26.9 yards in the air — only Ryan Tannehill and Jason Campbell have thrown deeper among quarterbacks with more than 30 attempts. With no time to prepare Keenum for the intimate details of the offense, Gary Kubiak adjusted his scheme to fit the player. They ran plenty of play-action. They mostly kept him in shotgun or pistol looks. And through his first three starts, he had 231 DYAR against two of the three best defenses in the league — Arizona and Kansas City (with Justin Houston) — and a Colts pass defense that has yo-yoed between good and bad throughout the season.

– Kubiak benched him for Schaub, twice, late in games. The original reason given was that he does not know the proper protection schemes. My (admittedly unchecked) observation is that Kubiak did not trust Keenum without a running back in the backfield, and moving to Schaub would presumably avoid hot read confusion, which has been an issue for Keenum. Of course, Keenum ran a no-huddle spread offense pretty well in college, but okay, sure, the protection scheme is an issue. Not an undying belief in an obsolete quarterback. Got it.

– Bob McNair, at the press conference firing Kubiak, praised Kubiak to the rafters. He also explained to the remaining coaching staff in no uncertain terms that Case Keenum was the starting quarterback of the Houston Texans for the rest of the season.

– And then, this week, Texans fans were treated to a completely inept offensive display, where Keenum mostly stayed in the pocket and checked down, the Texans barely ran any play-action, and deep passes were almost non-existent in the game plan. This is the kind of game plan you’d put in if you were intentionally tanking a season. But the Texans have been so adamant that they’re putting full effort in and trying their best down the stretch that they couldn’t even give us that sliver of hope that somebody upstairs decided it was time to throw in the towel. No, it’s the fact that this was a game plan they intentionally came up with that is the saddest thing of all.

In those first three weeks, Keenum threw 20 deep balls and garnered 176 DYAR on them. Practically all of his positive value as a quarterback was coming from his ability to make the deep throw. In five weeks since, his DYAR on deep balls has dropped to -8, and his average deep ball is going just 25.4 yards in the air past the line of scrimmage. It was nearly 29 in the first three games.

Is it possible that Keenum just rode a hot start and wasn’t really that talented at all? Sure. I think there’s plenty of reason to be skeptical of an undrafted quarterback. But the fact that he did it against fairly good competition stands out to me. My evaluation of Keenum right now is, to steal a Matt Waldman trope, that he’s on the Titans quarterback scale. He’s somewhere behind Ryan Fitzpatrick and Jake Locker, with a ceiling in between the two. It’s funny to picture him as Locker because of the obvious physical differences, but that’s how they play: inconsistent on short passes, can run around all day, and can make any throw on the field even if they often won’t. I think he’s got a career as a backup, and with a little development he’s got a chance to be more.

Well, here’s the problem, then: when you shift from using a player the way he’s best used to trying to make him fit your system, it’s obviously going to destroy his value to some extent. Most players are not as extreme as Keenum — as we just went over, almost all Keenum’s value comes from throwing deep — but to me that points to a failure of coaching. A failure of properly utilizing the parts you have in the best possible way.

Re: Our New Schemes on Both Sides of the Ball Will Promote Adaptability

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTP2110

Spot on article, IMO. It seemed to me that the more coaching Keenum received, the worse he played.

Or...... The more tape teams got on Keenum the more he sucked. I understand the UH lovefest that some people in this city have for the guy, hell I'm a UT fan and had the same for VY, we were both wrong.

Re: Our New Schemes on Both Sides of the Ball Will Promote Adaptability

good link doc. i'm a keenum fan, that's no secret. i'm NOT however a hometown or UofH homer - i don't think i've ever actually watched a UofH game. i said before and still believe that he has every tool necessary to be a success. there's a reason i'm not a talent evaluator though, the tools i see may or may not be the exact package of skills required to make it. i'm very anxious to see how o'brien rates keenum.

what i took from this article is a stance i agree with - "but to me that points to a failure of coaching". kubiak's a fantastic teacher and he has a great system, one of the best. it's a very very structured system however. it's at it's best with longer developing timing and option routes, usually from play-action and heavier packages. despite being strong at drawing up route combinations, kubiak doesnt run 4+ receiver and shotgun offenses well at all, it's just ugly. this spread attack is the adjustment he tried to make to focus on keenum's perceived strengths however, to both of their detriments. with the injuries at runningback, the offensive line falling apart and essentially a rookie who frankly wasnt ready yet, we saw the unavoidable results.

i'm trying not to magnify keenum's highlights and ignore his lowlights, but as a fan it's sometimes hard to do. he's got a lot of work to do to make it in this league, but as i started with, i think he has the tools and if given the chance to get comfortable with the system in camp - keenum could be very very good.

Re: Our New Schemes on Both Sides of the Ball Will Promote Adaptability

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTP2110

Spot on article, IMO. It seemed to me that the more coaching Keenum received, the worse he played.

Quote:

Originally Posted by texan_joe

Or...... The more tape teams got on Keenum the more he sucked. I understand the UH lovefest that some people in this city have for the guy, hell I'm a UT fan and had the same for VY, we were both wrong.

or.... numerous players that started well with the team then ended up not being "Texans worthy" & dropped went on to be amazing additions to other teams

Re: Our New Schemes on Both Sides of the Ball Will Promote Adaptability

To be honest, I really think that the majority of Keenum's drop off came from CBs and Safeties not giving up on the play and letting receivers go (deep) after 10 or so seconds. The guy is a master at avoiding the sack, staying behind the LOS (WAY behind, in many cases), and then throwing a bomb to somebody that is no longer covered because some DB thought the play was basically over already.

I'm not saying Kubiak's spread out wide and throw it short (and soon) Offense didn't screw him up some, though. I just think it was mostly the Defenses figuring him out.

And I was definitely a supporter of Keenum until it was clearly not working anymore.

Re: Our New Schemes on Both Sides of the Ball Will Promote Adaptability

I think his decline was

1/3 anticipation by opponents of how he reacts to certain coverages and blitzing. He took some massive sacks trying to extend plays.
1/3 lack of creative play calling
1/3 lack of a running game and protection toward the end

Let's not discount the whole Schaub/Kubiak drama either. I speculate there was a lot of opinion in that locker room on who should be starting and I doubt it was motivational.

Re: Our New Schemes on Both Sides of the Ball Will Promote Adaptability

Keenum is not what told me about this past coaching staff. There were several examples of poor adjustments, bad personnel management, and slow short AND long term recognition.

I do not know for sure that OB will be the guy that gets us where we want to be, but I feel better about him than I did about the previous staff. But I wanted them gone so bad I probably would have felt better about almost anyone. Kubiak was a good offensive coordinator, but he was not a good head coach at all.

Re: Our New Schemes on Both Sides of the Ball Will Promote Adaptability

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtexas

I think his decline was

1/3 anticipation by opponents of how he reacts to certain coverages and blitzing. He took some massive sacks trying to extend plays.
1/3 lack of creative play calling
1/3 lack of a running game and protection toward the end

Let's not discount the whole Schaub/Kubiak drama either. I speculate there was a lot of opinion in that locker room on who should be starting and I doubt it was motivational.

All three of those excuses you listed can be claimed by Schaub as well (to an extent). Keenum was not the only one who was limited by Kubiak (if there is indeed truth to that), behind a O-line who's right side was a joke, or whose opponents didn't game-plan for or scout.

In the same way Keenum declined, Schaub declined, albeit by a much larger margin. Contrary to what some posters would believe, Schaub used to be a top 15 QB in this league and somehow declined this season to one of the WORST. Add in another excuse of injury, Schaub has more reasons to decline than Keenum.

Yet, it seems the opinion of this board that Schaub's decline is not only all on Schaub, but permanent, while Keenum's is reversible and mostly Kubiak's, the defenses, the O-lines, and even Schaub's fault.

All that said, goodbye Schaub, welcome to the new QB of the Texans, it's a breath of fresh air we all need.

Re: Our New Schemes on Both Sides of the Ball Will Promote Adaptability

Quote:

Originally Posted by OzzO

or.... numerous players that started well with the team then ended up not being "Texans worthy" & dropped went on to be amazing additions to other teams

You seem to be more concerned that we have members of the team who can't control themselves than in getting better as a team. I wonder why? Do you subscribe to the theory that every team needs bad guys to win?

Re: Our New Schemes on Both Sides of the Ball Will Promote Adaptability

Quote:

Originally Posted by buddyboy

All three of those excuses you listed can be claimed by Schaub as well (to an extent). Keenum was not the only one who was limited by Kubiak (if there is indeed truth to that), behind a O-line who's right side was a joke, or whose opponents didn't game-plan for or scout.

In the same way Keenum declined, Schaub declined, albeit by a much larger margin. Contrary to what some posters would believe, Schaub used to be a top 15 QB in this league and somehow declined this season to one of the WORST. Add in another excuse of injury, Schaub has more reasons to decline than Keenum.

Yet, it seems the opinion of this board that Schaub's decline is not only all on Schaub, but permanent, while Keenum's is reversible and mostly Kubiak's, the defenses, the O-lines, and even Schaub's fault.

All that said, goodbye Schaub, welcome to the new QB of the Texans, it's a breath of fresh air we all need.

I believe that when assessing the 2 QBs' performances last season, many here tend to somehow overlook the fact that in the 1st 6 games that Schaub played to so poorly in, Foster (along with Tate) afforded him a GREAT RUNNING GAME. By the time Keenum was allowed to start, not only did he play with a shoddy OL with virtually no pass protection and pathetic D to go with it.........but Foster had "left the building" for good (and Tate was tattered)........and there was absolutely NOTHING LEFT OF THE RUNNING GAME.

Re: Our New Schemes on Both Sides of the Ball Will Promote Adaptability

Quote:

Originally Posted by CloakNNNdagger

I believe that when assessing the 2 QBs' performances last season, many here tend to somehow overlook the fact that in the 1st 6 games that Schaub played to so poorly in, Foster (along with Tate) afforded him a GREAT RUNNING GAME. By the time Keenum was allowed to start, not only did he play with a shoddy OL with virtually no pass protection and pathetic D to go with it.........but Foster had "left the building" for good (and Tate was tattered)........and there was absolutely NOTHING LEFT OF THE RUNNING GAME.

Sorry, correct me if I'm wrong (completely possible), but this shoddy OL you're referencing that Keenum suffered behind...where there any changes to this OL from the first half of the season where Schaub was in?

You're likely correct on the running game, my perspective that the running game stunk all season is probably skewed by the rest of the season.

Re: Our New Schemes on Both Sides of the Ball Will Promote Adaptability

Quote:

Originally Posted by buddyboy

Sorry, correct me if I'm wrong (completely possible), but this shoddy OL you're referencing that Keenum suffered behind...where there any changes to this OL from the first half of the season where Schaub was in?

You're likely correct on the running game, my perspective that the running game stunk all season is probably skewed by the rest of the season.

He was saying that Schaub and Keenum were both set up to fail, but the only difference was the lack if run game. Both played with bad OL and defense.

Re: Our New Schemes on Both Sides of the Ball Will Promote Adaptability

Quote:

Originally Posted by buddyboy

Sorry, correct me if I'm wrong (completely possible), but this shoddy OL you're referencing that Keenum suffered behind...where there any changes to this OL from the first half of the season where Schaub was in?

You're likely correct on the running game, my perspective that the running game stunk all season is probably skewed by the rest of the season.

The two went in opposite directions. The OL improved IMO: DB played significantly better in the back half than the beginning of the season and Brooks steadily improved as the season progressed.

Re: Our New Schemes on Both Sides of the Ball Will Promote Adaptability

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marshall

You seem to be more concerned that we have members of the team who can't control themselves than in getting better as a team. I wonder why? Do you subscribe to the theory that every team needs bad guys to win?

I want the BEST players on the team.

I'm not concerned with what they do in their personal lives as long as the team wins. (Exclude Aaron Hernandez)

Re: Our New Schemes on Both Sides of the Ball Will Promote Adaptability

I was lied to. The thread title implies that herein lies some insight into what our new coaching staff will implement.

The posted article is just more b!tching about what was wrong with the previous coaching staff.

Not a single word on what is to come from O'Brien & company which is what this titleOur New Schemes on Both Sides of the Ball Will Promote Adaptability
implies will be here.

False advertising I tells ya!

__________________
Loyalty to any one sports team is pretty hard to justify. ...the players are always changing, the team can move to another city, you're actually rooting for the clothes when you get right down to it.